Clandestine removal findings set aside for internal inconsistency; matter remanded for fresh adjudication on the same record.

Inconsistent appellate findings on the same evidentiary record vitiated the conclusion of clandestine removal, because one part of the order accepted correlation between purchase invoices and stock transfer challans as evidence of trading activity, while another part reached the opposite conclusion. The conflicting treatment of the material required fresh consideration by the original authority. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication in accordance with law, with the appellants to be given an opportunity to substantiate their claim and be heard.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order sustaining the allegation of clandestine removal could stand when the appellate findings on the evidentiary record were internally inconsistent, warranting fresh consideration.

Analysis: The recorded findings on one page accepted the correlation between purchase invoices and stock transfer challans, indicating trading activity in respect of part of the disputed quantity, while another part of the order took the opposite view and held that clandestine removal had been established. In view of this conflict on the same factual material, the matter required reconsideration by the original authority. The appellants were to be given an opportunity to substantiate their claim in re-adjudication.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording the appellants an opportunity to be heard.

---